WTH was Boehner and McConnell talking about?

McConnell saying Reid wouldn't take up immigration reform bills that were passed by the House. On Facebook, I got it again ad nauseum from a RWinger about HR 5230 and HR 5272 (which are really bad bills IMO but consider the source). They're making it look like we had a chance to debate a bill in the Senate and wouldn't do it. They go on and on about "that's how democracy works."

Reid: GOP had 510 days to act on immigration

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says he supports President Obama’s forthcoming executive action on immigration reform because House lawmakers have passed up plenty of opportunities to act.

We’ve given them time — 510 days to be exact,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “They need to do comprehensive immigration reform, and they’ve refused to do just that.
“Executive action is important, but it’s not a substitute for legislation, and the Speaker should know that,” Reid said. “This is about where Republicans stand with the immigrant community.”

The administration is expected to issue nearly 5 million worker visas to illegal immigrants, many of whom have children who are U.S. citizens. Democrats say the administration has no choice because the House failed to take up the Senate-passed immigration reform bill that provided a pathway to citizenship, increased visas and strengthened border security.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/224720-reid-house-had-510-days-to-deal-with-immigration

today. It's fully understandable. But you can see how they've managed to muddy the waters...and with no one making a direct rebuttal it makes it look very one sided.

HR 5230 and HR 5272: Making a Bad Situation Worse and What It Means for November and Beyond

by David F. Damore on 08/04/2014

Last Friday, after months of foot-dragging and increasingly bizarre explanations to justify their inaction, Republican congressional leaders finally allowed legislation addressing immigration policy to be brought to the House floor for consideration. For those holding out hope that the House would act on comprehensive immigration reform before slinking away for a five-week recess, Friday night’s back-to-back votes were a huge step backwards.

The first bill, HR 5230, appropriates $694 million – less than 20% of the funding requested by President Obama – to address the humanitarian crises along the U.S.-Mexico border. The legislation also expedites the deportation of unaccompanied Central American children, and reimburses Texas $35 million for costs associated with Governor Rick Perry’s decision to deploy Texas National Guard troops to the border.

The second measure, HR 5272, effectively eliminates the Department of Homeland Security’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created by executive authority in June of 2012. DACA allows for prosecutorial discretion towards children who immigrated to the United States without authorization and creates a process by which these individuals can obtain work permits for two years. By not allowing these work permits to be renewed, HR 5272 subjects the more than 700,000 people enrolled in DACA to deportation.

To be clear, because neither bill has any chance of becoming law, the House Republicans’ actions were purely symbolic, but not without consequence. In terms of the internal divisions within the GOP, party elders and their allies in the business and faith communities who have been advocating for moderation on immigration and increased outreach to Latinos clearly lost.

http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2014/08/04/hr-5230-and-hr-5270-making-a-bad-situation-worse-and-what-it-means-for-november-and-beyond/

The Senate passed a bill that had no chance of ever becoming law. Neither body acted on the other's legislation. They both acted like little kids. Both bodies should have given an up or down vote to the other's bills and let the results speak for themselves. It is ultra partisan to say only the Senate passed a bill and the House did not. That just is not true.

"and with no one making a direct rebuttal it makes it look very one sided."
Without creating a cloud of confusion around Any issue-they'd Never win. Scare the living hell out of as many people as you can, blame the crap you're doing on the other guy and then lie your ass off...keeps paranoia the driving factor behind electoral decisions...imo
Habitual and systematic political games: GOP Offense VS Democratic Defense Isn't a "Winning Strategy", imo.

People are Too afraid to deviate from the current status quo-cuz, good or bad-there is "comfort" in Knowing what you have VS taking a risk on something different because they "fear" it might get worse. Fear of the Unknown....remember the GOP call to "Fear FEMA CAMPS and Death Panels and Gun Confiscations"?

This type of "Mental Masturbation" for the masses is Exactly what "we" need to Educate, Educate, Educate our friends and neighbors about-so hopefully they can recognize it when they hear it.
Many of us are able to stay tuned even on the most mundane "news". We need to remember those who can't because: Parents working two/three jobs just don't have Any time to stay informed, Many areas of the country simply have No Access to a variety of news, beyond FOX, Explaining pundit "double speak", biases, selected content to skew context, omission of fact to "prove" a non-existent "reality".....and the political debate amongst the wealthy, the ultra-conservative, corporate pundits and other lying corporatists on KeystoneXL and Immigration right now-even if Planned couldn't separate out the "good guys with a plan from the bad guys with No plan", any more distinctly.
Listen to what "they" Don't say in response to questions...that usually tells us more than what they Do say.

The silver lining for Me is the fact-that explaining this to our friends has never been easier, imo. Corporate Wall Street GOP (all of 'em basically), Third Way Dems, New Dem Coalition Conserva-dems are exposing themselves Quickly - and that is a very good thing.
Even good 'ol Rand Paul is flopping around like a fish just pulled out of water....

You'll see it's supplemental appropriatons bill. The repubs are so easy to disprove,

TITLE I - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Makes supplemental appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including for U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

(Sec. 101) Prohibits the use of funds provided by this title for a reprogramming or transfer of funds that proposes to use funds directed for a specific activity for a different purpose than for which the appropriations were provided.

(Sec. 102) Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide Congress with quarterly reports that include specified details related to apprehensions of unaccompanied alien children at the border.

(Sec. 103) Rescinds specified unobligated balances available for Department of Homeland Security--Federal Emergency Management Agency--Disaster Relief Fund excluding any amounts Congress designated as an emergency requirement or as being for disaster relief.

(Sec. 104) Permits specified grants awarded under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to be used by state and local law enforcement and public safety agencies along the Southwest Border of the United States for costs related to combating illegal immigration and drug smuggling and providing humanitarian relief to unaccompanied alien children and alien adults accompanied by an alien minor who have entered the United States.

(Sec. 105) Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide funding transferred to DHS pursuant to this Act to states along the Southwest Border of the United States as reimbursement for necessary costs of National Guard personnel activated and deployed for border security.

Very, very few bills are stand alone. Appropriations bills are often filled with additions and restrictions for different agencies.

"The House passed two bills on immigration that would never become law."

A supplemental appropriation bill that is a bundle of funding requests, is not a "bill on immigration".

And yes, there have been many standalone bills, although they are often barely mentioned in the press (e.g., one just got sent to the President for his signature for Tramatic Brain Injury Reauthorization).

I do know what the appropriations bills are and take Appropriations Law courses every 2 years. They do not take the place of comprehensive legal policy legislation.

You are playing word games. What is your position on the other bill? That it was not an immigration bill either? There is no excuse for either body for not voting on each other's legislation.

Whoever is teaching you "Appropriations Law" is not doing a very good job. When passed the language contained in Appropriation Bills is just as much law as the language in "comprehensive legal policy" bills. If your teacher says different he/she needs to be removed from the classroom.

otherwise you wouldn't keep putting your foot in your mouth.

Both bills are simplistic attempts that deal with funding activities or not funding activities and do nothing to advance any reform of the current immigration system, including citizenship rules, residency rules, and so forth.

I would have said that your argument was a "nice try" but it wasn't even that.

The House should have voted on the Senate bill. But I don't work for the federal government and anybody who doesn't is obviously some idiot who should not make any comment to their betters.

and go into a joint conference to consider adding anything from the House funding bills, to the overall bipartisan, comprehensive legislation, and then present the result back to both chambers. but the House refused to do any joint negotiations. They even gave up the opportunity over the summer to work on something more comprehensive, but they punted.

Your remark about an Appropriations Law teacher only established why your arguments lack any credibility.

It was the House, John Boehner, who refused to bring the House immigration bill to the floor. As usual the repubs are lying through their teeth.

The ball is in the House's court.

It's considered likely to pass the House if put to a vote, but Speaker Boehner has refused to bring it to the floor.

Boehner said he'd bring it up in the House but his troops rebelled before he could.

is about reversing the dreamer eo.

A bipartisan, comprehensive bill passed in the Senate with 68 votes.

Piecemeal legislation doesn't have that much support in the Senate.

The House refuses to vote on the comprehensive bill that has broad support.

Those piecemeal bills were passed simply to give the GOP the talking points they're now using.

They never intended for them to pass, whereas most people thought the comprehensive bill had a chance.

Last edited Fri Nov 21, 2014, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

They've been raising hell about that for a long time, long before the current immigration issue. Last year, a friend who was a staffer for a senior Republican Rep was jumping up and down about it with me, as was a staffer for my GOP Rep, who was Majority Whip then and is now Majority Leader.

They use this to make hay with their faux outrage but there's nothing of substance there.

ETA: I forgot to mention that literally dozens of those bills were all bills to repeal or otherwise undermine the ACA. I was reminded when I just heard Ashleigh Banfield mention on CNN that the House passed FORTY bills that were stricty for repeal, not counting the others to subvert it in other ways short of repeal.

their usual yammering, which they would do no matter what Obama did or did not do.

would not bring it up in the House.
Don't post the repub lying bull shit then ask why we don't honor it.

What I couldn't understand is why no one on the show today had the facts that have been brought forward here in this thread. When they played those clips of Boehner and McConnell nobody spoke up and said "wait a minute! That's not the entire story..." When they played them again, no one on the panel said anything in rebuttal. It's infuriating to me. And I can't be the only one who saw that show and heard those clips.

The media is no longer news it bias bull shit. You know that I'm sure.

Mika is supposed to be the Democrat on the panel but she didn't say a word to push back. I'm sure they got lots of tweets on their Twitter feed.

when the bill really creates few , if any, jobs. The "immigration" bills referenced look more like "anti-immigration" bills to me. Just call them that.